[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "BTW, we are well familiar with the tactic of making a claim, then offering an undifferentiated “phone book” instead of a falsifiable argument.
If you can’t give a falsifiable summary, you are simply engaging in hearsay."

So, I take it you favor the type of scientific exactitude practiced by other posters here, this one, for example:

editor-surveyor post #30: "Pathetic pulp fiction, and nothing more."

Now there is a real scientific argument for you, in the same class as E=MC² for it's brilliance & brevity, right?

</sarc>

[Elsie]

E=MC²

Can be re-written as...

M=E/C² Thus...

LET THERE BE...

He is the Light of the world...

[editor-surveyor]

.
Bro Joe, we’re all aware of your fascination with the magnificent foolish lies of accidental life, but we also laugh ourselves into fatugue with your every post.

Cognition obviously passed you by.
.

[papertyger]

So, I take it you favor the type of scientific exactitude practiced by other posters here, this one, for example:...

Such posters are not posturing to give legitimate sources: you are.

As I said, this is an old tactic from avocational evolutionists, play scientific purist until the argument gets down to the "nuts and bolts," then throw out some supposedly confuting reference buried in sources that require far more training than the advocate has to falsify.

If you can't summarize and defend the thesis, you're claiming a certain street exists then throwing a phone book to the opposition to "prove you wrong."

That is NOT how legitimate participants in a debate behave.